But with the atheist, that moral monster,'—— horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum,' we are not now concerned. We leave him to the darkness he has brought upon himself through his 'philosophy and vain deceit,' and to the enjoyment, if enjoyment it be, of his dreary cavern, more dreary than that of Polyphemus,—a godless world.
We come to inquire, by way of preparation for the more direct prosecution of the object of this article, concerning the views entertained by the great mass of mankind who believe in the existence and providence of Jehovah, as to his particular connection with the subordinate governments on earth, and the station which it is his holy pleasure to occupy in their control and management. And here we find at once, wide and hurtful mistakes; occupying relatively, such is man's tendency to extremes, the position of antipodes. Some, overlooking the twofold agency, partly civil, partly ecclesiastical, by which the Most High promotes his own ends and the well being of his creatures, have resolved each into the other, making religion an affair of the state, and civil government a matter for ecclesiastical influence; producing in practice the unseemly compound, commonly called "church and state," but which might be more accurately characterized as the ruin of both.
As the fruits of this mistake, the world has seen profane monarchs invested with titles of religion and piety. In some countries, aided by ambition and intrigue, it has brought kings to kiss the feet of the professed ambassadors of Jesus Christ; and gained for them honors and power, which their divine but humble master declined for himself. This mistake has been confirmed, if it was not originated, by the organization of the great Jewish theocracy. This was, indeed, church and state. But it was under a divine administration.—And although the fact that the Deity not only attested and ratified the alliance, but condescended to be legislator, judge, and executive, might at once have prevented the inference; yet men have inferred that the civil and ecclesiastical powers ought always to be thus commingled. The consequences might have been anticipated. The history both of Christianity and of the world, is darkened by their melancholy shade. Religion, unguarded by the miraculous intervention of Him who, under a former dispensation, smote the offerers of strange fire, has been corrupted by those who would do her honor, and crushed by the embraces of false friends;—and her splendid sojourn in the halls of power, has been met by reverses not less striking, and far more disastrous, than Moses met after being the protege of royalty; while the civil rights of men, invaded by ambition and avarice, under the name of religion, and with the sanction of God's name, have been yielded up without a struggle, under the impression, that resistance would be "fighting against God." What would not have been demanded in the name of man, has been freely given in the name of God;—men who in defence of their rights, would have ventured cheerfully upon treason, have shrunk with horror from sacrilege.
Thus religion and liberty have well-nigh perished together, and their present resting-place on earth resembles rather the one found by Noah's dove on her second flight, than the broad home, illimitable but by the world's circumference, which as philanthropists we hope, and as Christians we pray, they may soon enjoy.
Others again, warned, perhaps, by the disasters consequent upon the policy last described, have gone to the extreme, not less hurtful, and far more presumptuous, of excluding religious motives and religious principles from all influence in the affairs of the commonwealth. They have thus become quoad hoc, practical atheists. Content indeed, that the Deity should keep our planet in motion, and regulate its seasons and its tides; and surround and cover it with the blessings of Providence, nor careful to forbid him a participation even in the internal concerns of Jupiter, or Herschell,—perhaps even willing to admit in theory, the truth of the statement from the inspired record with which this article commenced,—they yet deem it best for man, considered either as a governing or as a governed being, that the notion of a presiding Deity should be as much as possible excluded from his mind. The mere juxtaposition of the words "religion" and "politics," or any of their correlates, is sufficient to excite the fears of these scrupulous alarmists; and if they do not imitate the example of the French, who were seen near the close of the last century, rushing madly with the pendulum-like oscillation of human nature, from the bonds of religious despotism, into the very wilderness of atheism, and denounce Jehovah as a usurper, and his adherents as rebels against "the powers that be," they strive to separate all questions and acts of government from God and his laws, as if there were no God; thus making, if not an atheistic people, an atheistic government. Far otherwise, we cannot but pause here to remark, acted the noble men, the sifted wheat of three kingdoms, who were thrown by God's providence through ecclesiastical tyranny, upon these shores. If they for a time, with a strange tenacity of old habits, which showed that principle, not passion, led them, clung to the very usages respecting toleration, which had exiled them, they at least preserved the nation which they founded, from the character and the curse of a nation which despises God. Heaven grant, that the pendulum may not even now be swinging to the other extreme!
While we would have the affairs of the nation managed as if there were no church in the world, we would not have them managed as if there were no God in the world. Could our voices reach the millions of our countrymen, as Joshua's voice reached the thousands of Israel, we would say as he said, 'If the Lord be God, serve him.' In a word, while we believe that the civil and ecclesiastical departments ought to be distinct, and that their union is a departure from the intention of Him who formed both, and that it is fraught with the most disastrous consequences to both, we do not believe that the almighty Ruler has excluded himself from the control of either, or given the least permission that either should be managed on any other principles than the eternal principles of right, which are embodied in his character, and laid down in his word.
When we speak of a sense of religious obligation, we mean more than a general undefined belief that such an obligation exists. Such a belief is withheld, we trust, by comparatively few who hold important places in our national and State governments. But can it be doubted by any man who has accustomed himself to contemplate the distinction between mere intellectual assent, and the warm, practical conviction which reaches the heart, and controls the conduct, that this belief may coexist with as total an insensibility to the claims of Jehovah, as if it were William IV., or Nicholas of Russia, who performed them, instead of the Most High God?
Is it too much to desire, nay to infer, as a duty, from what has already been said, that our rulers in the executive, legislative, and judicial departments, both in the general and State governments, should have an abiding consciousness of accountability—should live under a felt pressure of obligation—to the Sovereign of the universe, which should assume, as it must where it exists at all, a practical, binding force? Is it too much to ask, that they should remember that they are the servants of God for good to this great people, and that to their own Master they stand or fall? That they rule by God's permission, and for his ends; and that a higher tribunal than any on earth awaits the termination of their responsibility to man? That they should remember their obligation, in common with those who elevated them to office, "whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God;" and the solemn truth, that a sin against God or man, whether of omission or of commission, whether committed in private, in the family circle, or in the high places of authority, is no less a sin, when committed by a judge, or a legislator, or a chief magistrate of a State or nation, than by the humblest of his constituents? In a word, do we claim too prominent a place for religious principle in the administration of public affairs, when we avow our desire that the rulers of a people, who are the nominal, and in a free government the real, representatives of the people, should be daily and practically aware, that they are accountable to a higher Power, thus realizing, if not in the highest and most Christian sense, yet in the literal signification, the picture of a good ruler drawn by the prophet, who, in the name of the almighty Ruler, declares, "He that ruleth over men, must be just—ruling in the fear of God!"
We cannot reflect without occasion for the deepest gratitude, that in contemplating the advantages of such a state of mind and of heart, as possessed by men in authority, we are not confined to a priori reasoning. England has had her Alfred, her Edward VI., and her Matthew Hale; Sweden her Gustavus Adolphus; our own most cherished and beloved country, a Washington, and a Wirt, with many others among the dead, and not a few among the living, to whom our readers may recur as we proceed, both for illustration of our meaning, and proof of our assertions.
Among the effects of this sense of obligation, which go to show its importance to every man in public life, we mention first, its influence in checking the love and pride of power. It will not be said by any man, who has acquired even a smattering of the science of human nature, that the simplicity of our republican institutions excludes all danger from this source. It is the great weakness of man, to desire power; and, having it, to be proud of it; and, in his pride, to abuse it. It matters not whether it be the power of a monarch on his throne, or of the humblest village functionary. If it be power, or even the semblance of power, it charms the eye of the expectant, and, too often, turns the head of the possessor.